2 questions about Poltergeist

[Ragnar82 0]

The card sais,

Poltergeist (action card):
Play: Use an artifact controlled by any player as if it were yours. Destroy that artifact.

first question is, can i destroy an artifact that only have a pasive ability?

The second one is, If my oponent got a pasive and an active artifact, i must choose the active one in order to resolve the most part of the effect?

 

[dperello 172]

Only artifacts with Action or Omni abilities can be used.

If your opponent only has an artifact with only a constant ability and you have an artifact with an Action ability you must target your own.

[Brian_Black 105]

Huh, I interpreted that more loosely, such that I could use any artifact (even if it had no immediate tangible benefit, such as a passive ability), then destroy the artifact, using Poltergeist as a means to target artifacts for destruction.

[dperello 172]

From page 6 of the current rulebook:

USING ARTIFACTS
There are two types of abilities that enable a player to use an artifact: “Action:” abilities and “Omni:” abilities.

• When a player uses an artifact, they exhaust the card and then resolve its abilities.

An artifact can't be used if it only has passive abilities.  Poltergeist only destroys an artifact after it has used it.  Therefor, Poltergeist cannot destroy passive ability only artifacts.

Also, as a point of clarification, Poltergeist also cannot destroy an artifact that has already been used and is exhausted.

Edited November 21, 2018 by dperello

[papalorax 8]

I would say we are still waiting an official answer to the question dperello posted. Whether or not you must choose something that can do more would be a huge change to this game - frankly one that would be a bad decision for simplicity and understanding.

[papalorax 8]

"Poltergeist only destroys an artifact after it has used it. "

That is not true - it will destroy the artifact selected regardless if it was used or not. Official ruling in the Facebook group from the Game Dev

[twinstarbmc 719]

I would say that, based on the "Do as much as you can" rule, you can target an artifact that only has a passive ability, not use it (since it can't be used), and then destroy it (since it can still be destroyed).

[dperello 172]

I'm fraking done.  This game makes no sense in its choice of words.  Words matter.  Their order matters.  Their meaning freaking matter.

Poltergeist doesn't say choose an artifact, use it if possible, then  destroy it.  It says use one and destroy it.  How can you use something that can't be used.  How can you target something you can... damnit, I give up.

[Matrim 533]

I though there was also a dev ruling to state that board state needs to adjust for it to count as used? Am I thinking of a different game..

[dpuck1998 56]

2 minutes ago, dperello said:

I'm fraking done.  This game makes no sense in its choice of words.  Words matter.  Their order matters.  Their meaning freaking matter.

Poltergeist doesn't say choose an artifact, use it if possible, then  destroy it.  It says use one and destroy it.  How can you use something that can't be used.  How can you target something you can... damnit, I give up.

But it doesn't say that, there is no 'and'

It says "Play: Use an artifact controlled by any player as if it were yours. Destroy that artifact."  There is a period, no then/than/and, thus you can do either or both as much as possible.  I'm almost positive (based on destiny rulings) that you don't have to use it to destroy it.

[sabrjay 59]

....

Edited November 21, 2018 by sabrjay

[Dave Cordeiro [REAPOUT] 14]

If you have a battle line where one flank creature is exhausted, and the other flank creature is ready, are you forced to play Sergeant Zakiel on the side with the Exhausted creature?
No, you can put him on either flank and then from there resolve as much as you can. You can target any artifact, and then it will destroy it, used or not.

[dpuck1998 56]

When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest. 

Questions?

[dperello 172]

If the card said, "Choose an artifact.   Use and destroy it."  I would have absolutely no problem with any of this.  But it doesn't.  It says USE.  There's a whole section in the rules about using artifacts, which ones can be used, how to use them, what happens after you use them.  This ruling isn't following DAMAYC.  It's saying ignore specific targeting requirements.  It saying the choice of words don't matter.

 

Again, if it said to choose an artifact, then it said to do whatever the crap you wanted to do to it, then it said to destroy it, all of this would make sense.  As it is English is being thrown out the window and thoughtless decisions are being made.

[dperello 172]

14 minutes ago, dpuck1998 said:

When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest. 

Questions?

I have a question.  What does the word "that" refer to on Poltergeist? 

[RobertK 709]

To be clear, in the full rulebook under the Glossary, "'If You Do' AND 'In Order to'":

Quote

If an ability includes the phrase “if you do” or “in order to,” the player referenced by the ability must successfully and completely resolve the text that precedes that phrase before they can resolve or perform the text that follows that phrase. In other words, if the first part of the ability is not successfully and completely resolved, that which follows the phrase does not resolve or cannot be performed.

Poltergeist does NOT have the language referenced in these rules, therefore the two things that Poltergeist does are independent. Do one thing ("Use the artifact"), then do the other thing.("Destroy that artifact").

The real question is whether the rule on accomplishing as much of an effect as possible applies to forcing you to make a different choice of artifact. If that were true, then the words "if you do" or "in order to" would be irrelevant and there wouldn't need to be rules about prerequisite effects. Thus, the rule on doing as much as possible ISN'T a way of PREVENTING entire effects, rather its a way of allowing parts of effects to happen even when there are apparent contradictions with other parts of the effect. That's exactly what we have here.

[Dave Cordeiro [REAPOUT] 14]

Does Anger have to choose exhausted creatures? Same rules apply here

[Poposhka 171]

whenever a card draws this much attempts of interpretation of single words on them, there should be a dev ruling / erratum coming.

[dperello 172]

2 minutes ago, Dave Cordeiro said:

Does Anger have to choose exhausted creatures? Same rules apply here

That's completely irrelevant to whether or not Poltergeist destroys an artifact.  The language in Poltergeist should matter.  When it says,"Destroy that artifact," which artifact is it referring to?  The only way to target an artifact with Poltergeist using the words printed on the card is to select an artifact that can be used.  It doesn't say to choose an artifact.  It specifically says to use one.  It then says, through the use of the phrase, "that artifact," to destroy the artifact you just used.  USED, not chose, or selected, or targetted.  USED.  How can the second sentence refer to something that didn't happen?  Makes no sense.

Again, if it said, "Choose an artifact.  Use and destroy it," the card would work as intended.  The way it's worded throws English out the window and requires the player to do something that follows no line of sensable thought whatsoever.

I don't care that Poltergeist can destroy any artifact.  I care that the language used on the card is so sloppy and imprecise that any sort of logical understanding of the cards is gone.  Everything needs to be clarified because no known rules of language or meaning are being followed.

[Poposhka 171]

8 minutes ago, dperello said:

.  I care that the language used on the card is so sloppy and imprecise that any sort of logical understanding of the cards is gone.  Everything needs to be clarified because no known rules of language or meaning are being followed.

I totally agree with you, FFG used a lot of inconsistent language on KF and it's annoying me to no end, sloppy is the right word for it. I hate this about FFG games, in that it seems like every single card needs a clarification and a separate rules ruling from devs, and unless you troll each single forum, subreddit, twitter, facebook, and dev blog, you will eventually miss out on critical information that some random guy got from some random dev. The fact that Dr. Garfield gave one interpretation on Biomatrix and FFG directly contradicted him in their v.1.1 rules was aggravating.

that being said, wrt Poltergeist, "use an artifact" is not a "cost" or condition to be fulfilled for this card, in fact, KF seems very liberal about not having conditions (if -> then), and I'm inclined to say that even though you cannot use the artifact you can still destroy it. I would see the sequence of events as this, following "do as much as you can":

1. Use an artifact as if it was yours. (choose a non-usable artifact, which cannot be used, so skip this step)

2. Destroy that artifact. (can be done)

Edited November 21, 2018 by Poposhka

[dpuck1998 56]

Let me offer more help, things you can find reading the rules.

“IF YOU DO” AND “IN ORDER TO”

If an ability includes the phrase “if you do” or “in order to,” the player referenced by the ability must successfully and completely resolve the text that precedes that phrase before they can resolve or perform the text that follows that phrase. In other words, if the first part of the ability is not successfully and completely resolved, that which follows the phrase does not resolve or cannot be performed.

Edited November 21, 2018 by dpuck1998

[xbeaker 341]

 

18 minutes ago, dperello said:

That's completely irrelevant to whether or not Poltergeist destroys an artifact.  The language in Poltergeist should matter.  When it says,"Destroy that artifact," which artifact is it referring to?  The only way to target an artifact with Poltergeist using the words printed on the card is to select an artifact that can be used.  It doesn't say to choose an artifact.  It specifically says to use one.  It then says, through the use of the phrase, "that artifact," to destroy the artifact you just used.  USED, not chose, or selected, or targetted.  USED.  How can the second sentence refer to something that didn't happen?  Makes no sense.

Again, if it said, "Choose an artifact.  Use and destroy it," the card would work as intended.  The way it's worded throws English out the window and requires the player to do something that follows no line of sensable thought whatsoever.

How is that different?  You would still be arguing and saying that you have to use it so you can destroy it.  "It says use AND destroy.  And means both, not either.  Words matter."

[dirtmuncher 18]

They should have made it even more flexible.

Use and/or destroy 1 artifact of any player.

 

Now it's just weird.

In the current form 'that artifact' refers to the artifact that is used.

FFG needa to learn how to English better.

[Nighthawke21 0]

Sorry ignore me, still learning the rules

Edited November 21, 2018 by Nighthawke21
Found the answer

[dperello 172]

23 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

 

How is that different?  You would still be arguing and saying that you have to use it so you can destroy it.  "It says use AND destroy.  And means both, not either.  Words matter."

The difference is that the second part of Poltergeist only refers to the artifact you just used.  It's really not that complicated.  The card is written very poorly.

I'd still like someone who has no problem with this card to explain to me exactly which artifact Poltergeist is referring to when it says "that" artifact. It clearly isn't the one you just used because you didn't just use one.  So it's referring to some nebulous artifact chosen how exactly?  Not by using it, which is what the card says.

'Use and destroy" would be fine because it would be preceeded by "choose one."  Then DAMAYC would work just fine.  Again, given its wording, Poltergeist only refers to the artifact that was just used, not the artifact that was chosen.

 

Look, I understand how the card works, and FFG can make whatever rulings they wish, but the more they deviate from the language that actually appears on the cards the harder it is going to be for anyone to play the game as intended.  Poltergeist let's you choose an artifact outside of being able to use it?  Fine.  Stupid that it doesn't say that, but if those are the rules, fine.  A similar ruling was handed down around use of stunned creatures, so I shouldn't be surprised.  I'm just incredibly disappointed that a game I like so much is having either completely asinine rulings made or is so poorly written that the FAQ will end up being 300+ pages long.